Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV16286, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV16286, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16286 Hearing Date: October 24, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO ADVANCE MSA DATE

Hearing Date: 10/23/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV16286 FRANK BLEDSOE vs TCI TRANSPORTATION SERVICES et al.

Moving Party: Cross Defendant Transportation Commodities, Inc.

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO ADVANCE MSA DATE IS GRANTED

On October 11, 2024, Cross-Defendant Transportation Commodities, Inc. filed a motion for summary adjudication against Cross-Complainant Transportation Commodities, Inc. Cross-Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is currently set to be heard on June 10, 2025, after the trial date. The current trial date is February 18, 2025. Cross-Defendant now moves the Court to advance the hearing on its motion for summary adjudication so it can be heard prior to trial. No opposition was filed.

Numerous courts of appeal have held that a trial court cannot refuse to consider a motion for summary judgment that is timely filed. "A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment filed within the time limits of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 437c. [Citation.] Local rules and practices may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion." (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529); accord First State Inc. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 324, 330 [invalidating case management order to the extent it precluded filing motions pursuant to section 437c ]; Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 923 [local court rule that "require a party filing a complex summary judgment motion to file the motion six months before the date set for trial is void and unenforceable because it is inconsistent with section 437c"].) As the Sentry court explained: "We are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions." (Sentry, supra, at p. 530.)

MSJs or MSAs are required to be served at least 107 days before trial, if done electronically. (Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.) The present motion was filed and served on October 11, 2024, and the trial date is set for February 18, 2025, which is 130 days apart. Therefore, the motion is timely. Cross-Defendant is therefore entitled to have its motion for summary adjudication heard prior to trial.

In advancing the motion for summary adjudication (MSA), the Court must ensure it does not violate any of the following deadlines.

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(2) and (3):

(2) Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. If the notice is served by mail, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by 5 days if the place of address is within the State of California, 10 days if the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States, and 20 days if the place of address is outside the United States. If the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by two court days.

(3) The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. The filing of the motion shall not extend the time within which a party must otherwise file a responsive pleading.

Since the MSA was served electronically, the earliest hearing date, accounting for 75 days and two court days from October 11, 2024, would be December 30, 2024.

Thirty days prior to the trial date of February 18, 2025, is January 18, 2025, which establishes the latest date the MSA can be heard. Therefore, Defendant’s MSA can only be moved to a hearing date between December 30, 2024, and January 18, 2025. The Court advances the hearing on the MSA to January 6, 2025, at 1:30 p.m.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.